Opinion
05-23-2017
Michael CHUTKO, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Oded BEN–AMI, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Michael Chutko, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Martin Melzer, etc., Defendant–Respondent, The Estate of Marjorie Strider, Defendant.
Gold, Benes, LLP, Bellmore (Jeffrey B. Gold of counsel), for appellants. Vouté, Lohrfink, Magro & McAndrew, LLP, White Plains (William G. Morris of counsel), for Oded Ben–Ami and Davidow, Davidow, Siegal & Stern, LLP, respondents. Spizz & Cooper, LLP, Mineola (Harvey W. Spizz of counsel), for Martin Melzer, respondent.
Gold, Benes, LLP, Bellmore (Jeffrey B. Gold of counsel), for appellants.
Vouté, Lohrfink, Magro & McAndrew, LLP, White Plains (William G. Morris of counsel), for Oded Ben–Ami and Davidow, Davidow, Siegal & Stern, LLP, respondents.
Spizz & Cooper, LLP, Mineola (Harvey W. Spizz of counsel), for Martin Melzer, respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 8, 2016, in the attorney action, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 11, 2016, in the estate action, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The claims against the attorneys (defamation and tortious interference with contract) were correctly dismissed, because the attorneys' letter was "pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation" as established by irrefutable documentary evidence
(see Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 715, 4 N.Y.S.3d 581, 28 N.E.3d 15 [2015] ). Plaintiffs failed to show that the litigation, commenced in Surrogate's Court by the Estate of Marjorie Strider to recover certain artwork, was not brought in good faith. Indeed, the Surrogate's Court found that there were reasonable grounds to inquire into the Estate's claim of ownership to the work.
The claims against the Estate and its executor, based on the same attorneys' letter, were correctly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (Alamo v. McDaniel, 44 A.D.3d 149, 153, 841 N.Y.S.2d 477 [1st Dept.2007] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.